arXiv:math/0505004v2 [math.RA] 2 Jun 2005 u-esrsur sub-tensor-square h etitdcidcino a of coinduction restricted the lyfr iouewt h right the with a form ally en t centralizer its define h noopimrn 5;i enwps from pass now we if [5]; ring endomorphism the R rblt if arability htidcinof induction that lcsteevlpn ring enveloping the places qiaec ato oiaeuvlne nti aetnoigb th by tensoring case this in equivalence, Morita a of part equivalence hoy[0,w ih xeietwt h ylcmodule cyclic the with experiment might we [10], theory iwo oiaeuvlneadisgnrlztos hnw esri a in tensor stud we the module When in cyclic generalizations. the role by its similar way and from a ciative way equivalence plays troubling Morita it a of in that view perhaps see below, will H-separability We and separability [4]. algebras Azumaya and xeso eoe naturally becomes extension T pi xeso steda fasprbeetnini nsa way unusual a in extension separable a of dual the is extension split A 69,1E5 02,22D30. 20D25, 18E05, 16D90, Date ie ighomomorphism ring a Given sagnrtr(hoe .) hsol ntecs fH-separability of case the in only Thus 3.4). (Theorem generator a is ETAIESADIVRE OIDCINAS INDUCTION TO INVERSES AND CENTRALIZERS oebr6 2018. 6, November : R Abstract. R ring nyi h aeo -eaaiiyis H-separability of case splitne the or in separability Only characterizes property this tive, hi etaies n pca aeo ojcueta D that for conjecture a factoid of a case normal. of special are a analogue and subalgebra centralizers, commutative. extens Hopf their pre-braided two a and depth Rieffel yields a of of normality sense centralizer the the in that subring show also We tions. eaal,Hsprbe pi rlf et w D) If (D2). two depth left or split H-separable, separable, n s hte ekgnrtrcniinon condition generator weak a whether ask and e module key frestricted of xesosa el osbyapolmin problem a possibly well, as extensions S ceiain,w hrceielf 2etnin nterms in extensions D2 left characterize we acterizations, R T = R ed oa qiaec fctgre nes otefunctor the to inverse categories of equivalence an to leads ihedmrhs igioopi otecne of center the to isomorphic ring endomorphism with T A T B ( = sjs rjcie(hoe .)adcaatrzsH-separability characterizes and 2.2) (Theorem projective just is ioueedmrhs ring endomorphism bimodule , A A ie ighomomorphism ring a Given A A mdlsi neuvlneo aeoiswihcaatrzssep- characterizes which categories of equivalence an is -modules ⊗ QIAEC FCATEGORIES OF EQUIVALENCE A mdlso etitdcidcinof coinduction restricted or -modules B 1. R e A T o nAuaaalgebra Azumaya an for nrdcinadPreliminaries and Introduction ) = B ( = oascaietnoigb h ylcmodules cyclic the by tensoring Nonassociative . A A e B A A hc ly ao oei h td fseparability of study the in role major a plays which ioueedmrhs ring endomorphism bimodule , ⊗ ioopi to -isomorphic B B B R -module ASKADISON LARS → T A ninduced an , T ) A B mdl cin.I un u httensoring that out turns It action). -module eps oisidcdbimodule induced its to pass we , h ring The . R 1 T S N rgnrtr hc elcsthe replaces which progenerator, a End = σ A B by ( fe salsigteechar- these establishing After . M M → R -aeoiso t generaliza- its or )-categories S A T T tef(em .) hsshows This 2.1). (Lemma itself B R T -module A A B ih hrceielf D2 left characterize might osdriscentralizer its consider , oits to sntrlyioopi to isomorphic naturally is dfie ne.()blw re- below) (4) eq. in (defined B mdlsi case in -modules sfrarn extension. ring a for ss n sub-tensor-square and R S T R ofsubalgebras Hopf 2 ftemodule the of R or A wihde o gener- not does (which o xml,its example, For -dual o sanormal a is ion S ugop and subgroups ⊗ finduction of s R S B r projec- are A M End = . S progenerator e A faseparable a of R ndphtwo depth in | T B h on of point the T R or B is B involving , nonasso- A A B sthis is B of y and and N if 2 LARS KADISON

(Lemma 2.4). Thus restricted coinduction is an equivalence from the of modules MB to its image subcategory, a characterization of split extension if SR is projective (Theorem 2.5). Left depth two extensions have a Galois theory and duality theorems for actions and coactions explored in [10, 6, 7, 8, 3]. What we do instead in this paper is show that a left D2 extension A | B has properties similar to a split extension as well as a separable extension. In Theorems 3.3 and 3.6 we show that a necessary condition for A | B to be left D2 is that restricted coinducted restriction and inducted restriction are equivalences as functors from the category of A-modules with inverse from the image subcategory defined by −⊗S R and R ⊗T − once again. Given the known examples of D2 and separable extensions independently scattered on a Venn diagram on the one hand, and the characterization of H-separability (a strong form of both D2 extension and separable extension) on the other, we ask whether a weak generator condition on RT together with the equivalence data might characterize left D2 extensions, perhaps with a flatness condition in addition. This might have an answer in the the theory of σ(M)-categories or its generalizations by Wisbauer [18] and Dress a subject we bring to bear in section 5 on a related question. In section 4 of this paper we revisit a notion of normal subring in the sense of Rieffel [16]. We work with the simplest possible definition of normality in [16] since this already coincides with the notion of normality for Hopf subalgebras (Proposi- tion 4.3). It is also a good notion for stating that the centralizer of a depth two extension is a normal subring (Proposition 4.2, and the closely related fact that it is pre-braided commutative in section 5). For example, this yields a Hopf subalgebra analogue of a factoid for subgroups and their centralizers (Proposition 4.4), and a special case of a conjecture that D2 Hopf subalgebras are normal (Corollary 4.5). In a final section we discuss further categorical considerations and results such as which ring extensions generalizing separable extensions as well as D2 extensions possess the property that the inverse of induction-restriction of modules is tensoring by the centralizer module RT . We also discuss a depth two condition for using bicategories and endomorphism rings, and a functorial characterization of left D2 extension A | B in terms of induction from B to A on the one hand and induction from R to T , or coinduction from R to S, on the other hand.

1.1. Preliminaries for the general reader. The starting point in this paper is a g : B → A of associative unital rings preserving unity and admitting the possibility of noncommutative rings. (We may equally well work with K-algebras over a K, K-symmetric bimodules and K-linear morphisms throughout. In this paper then unadorned tensors between rings are over the integers.) The homomorphism induces a natural bimodule BAB ′ ′ via b · a · b = g(b)ag(b ) if g : B → A, as well as bimodules AAB and BAA defined via g on one side only. The same holds for an A-module AM; it is a B-module BM via g. This defines the usual functor R (of “restriction”) from the category of left A-module denoted by AM with A-linear morphism into the category B M. The data we focus on is contained in the subring g(B) ⊆ A, leading us to suppress g and view B → A as a ring extension A | B, a proper ring extension if B ֒→ A is monic. Sometimes a condition on AB, such as being a generator module, entails that A | B is a proper extension. If B is commutative and g maps B into the center Z(A) of A, then A | B is the B-algebra A, where a proper ring extension is a faithful algebra. CENTRALIZERS AND INVERSES TO INDUCTION AS EQUIVALENCE OF CATEGORIES 3

If AMA denotes an A-A-bimodule, we let M B := {m ∈ M|bm = mb, ∀ b ∈ B}. Note that this is isomorphic to the of A-A-bimodule homomorphisms from the tensor-square to M, ∼ = B (1) Hom (AA ⊗B AA, AMA) −→ M F 7−→ F (1A ⊗ 1A) with inverse m 7−→ (x ⊗ y 7→ xmy) for m ∈ M B,x,y ∈ A. In particular, we let M = A and note the centralizer subring of A, B (2) R := A =∼ Hom (AA ⊗B AA, AAA), via r 7→ (x ⊗ y 7→ xry). As another particular case, we let M = A ⊗B A, the tensor-square with its usual endpoint A-A-bimodule structure, so that the endomorphism ring (under composition) B (3) End AA ⊗B AA =∼ (A ⊗B A) := T induces the following ring structure on the construction T for a ring extension A | B, where we suppress a possible summation over simple tensors and use a Sweedler-like 1 2 notation to write t = t ⊗ t ∈ T ⊆ A ⊗B A. 1 1 2 2 (4) tu = u t ⊗ t u , 1T =1A ⊗ 1A We will fix the notation T throughout the paper for this ring construction while not A making explicit its dependence on the extension A | B. Note the left (A⊗B A) of Casimir tensor elements. From the End -representation of T we note that A ⊗B A is the left T -module: 1 2 (5) T (A ⊗B A): t · (x ⊗ y)= xt ⊗ t y for all t ∈ T,x,y ∈ A. Thus any module AM (restricted then) induced to A ⊗B M becomes a left T - module via the canonical A ⊗B M =∼ A ⊗B A ⊗A M: 1 2 (6) T (A ⊗B M): t · (a ⊗ m)= at ⊗ t m for m ∈ M,a ∈ A, t ∈ T . Given the bimodule AMA, the End -representation of T and eq. (1) leads via B composition from the right to the module (M )T given by B 1 2 B (7) (M )T : m · t = t mt (m ∈ M ,t ∈ T ).

In particular, we obtain the module RT , important in this paper, defined by 1 2 (8) RT : r · t = t rt (r ∈ R,t ∈ T ). This module was studied in [9] as a generalized Miyashita-Ulbrich module with roots in Hopf algebra and group representations. The bimodule RTR is important in the depth two theory in e.g. [10, 6, 7, 8] where T acts as a right bialgebroid over R , and plays a minor role in this paper: ′ 1 2 ′ (9) RTR : r · t · r := rt ⊗ t r for t ∈ T, r, r′ ∈ R, a restriction of scalars to a submodule of the tensor-square A-A-bimodule. We also need the construction S := End BAB, dual to T as a left R-bialgebroid in the depth two theory [10, 6, 7]. In the ring S under the usual composition we note 4 LARS KADISON the right ideal Hom (BAB , BBB). For any B-module NB, we note that the coinduced right A-module Hom (AB ,NB) (given by (ha)(x) = h(ax)) is also a right S ⊗ B- module; i.e., with commuting right S- and B-action since (hb)(α(a)) = (h ◦ α)(ba) for α ∈ S, b ∈ B. In other words, the A-module action restricted to a B-module action commutes with the S-module action to give a module Hom (BA, BN)S⊗B (tensor over the integers). Since each r ∈ R defines an endomorphism in S in two ways - by left multipli- cation or by right multiplication,

(10) λr(x)= rx, ρr(x)= xr (x ∈ A, r ∈ R) which commute λrρs = ρsλr, we work with an R-R-bimodule structure on S given by

(11) RSR : r · α · s = λrρsα = rα(−)s which is the appropriate bimodule for the left bialgebroid theory in [10, 6, 7, 8]. Finally, there is the natural left S action on A by evaluation, which restricted to the centralizer becomes

(12) SR : α · r = α(r) which is also in R (for α ∈ S, r ∈ R). The module SR, studied to an extent in [6], will be important to our study of split extensions in the next section and left D2 extensions in the following section.

2. Separable and Split Extensions

Recall that a ring extension A | B is separable if the mapping µ : A ⊗B A → A given by multiplying components, µ(x ⊗ y) = xy, is a split A-A-epimorphism; an −1 element e ∈ µ (1A) is called a separability element and characterizes separable extensions with its two properties, ae1 ⊗ e2 = e1 ⊗ e2a for all a ∈ A and e1e2 = µ(e) = 1.

Lemma 2.1. Given a separable extension A | B and a module AM, the mapping γM r ⊗T (a ⊗B m) 7−→ arm is an isomorphism =∼ (13) R ⊗T (A ⊗B M) −→ M of left A-modules.

Proof. Note that the left A-module structure on R ⊗T A ⊗B M is given by a · r ⊗T x ⊗B m = r ⊗ ax ⊗ m (a, x ∈ A), which is well-defined since since the left T -module 1 2 structure on the induced module A ⊗B M is given by t · a ⊗ m = at ⊗ t m. An inverse mapping M → R ⊗T (A ⊗B M) is defined in terms of a separability element 1 2 1 2 by m 7→ 1A ⊗ e ⊗ e m for each m ∈ M, since on the one hand we have e e m = m and on the other hand, given a ∈ A, r ∈ R, 1 2 1 2 1 ⊗ (e ⊗ e arm)=1 ⊗T (e ⊗ e r) · (a ⊗ m)= r ⊗ (a ⊗ m).  The lemma recovers the isomorphism in [9, Theorem 4.1] when M = A. Let F denote the induction functor on A-modules, so that F (M) = A ⊗B M for an A-module AM and F (f) = idA ⊗ f for an arrow f ∈ AM. In the theorem below, F is shown to be a fully faithful functor between AM and its image F (AM) (perhaps more traditionally denoted by F (AM) = IndResAM) [12, p. 95]. In addition, the CENTRALIZERS AND INVERSES TO INDUCTION AS EQUIVALENCE OF CATEGORIES 5 lemma together with projectivity of RT is clearly seen from the proof to characterize separability.

Theorem 2.2. A ring extension A | B is separable if and only if the module RT is projective and the induction functor F : AM → F (AM) is an equivalence of categories with inverse functor given by G(A ⊗B M)= R ⊗T (A ⊗B M).

1 2 Proof. (⇒) That the module RT (given by r · t = t rt ) is cyclic projective follows from [9, 4.1], or more simply by noting that the right T -epi

1 2 (14) εT : TT → RT : εT (t)= t t is split by r 7→ e1 ⊗ e2r using a separability element e. By lemma, we see that there is a natural isomorphism γ : GF → I given by γM (r ⊗T a ⊗B m) := arm on an object M, a natural transformation since for each arrow f : N → M in AM, the equation γM ◦ GF (f)= f ◦ γN just follows from f being A-linear. Similarly, we see that there is a natural isomorphism φ : F G → I =∼ given by φM : A⊗B (R⊗T (A⊗B M)) −→ A⊗B M, φM (a⊗B r⊗T x⊗B m)= a⊗B xrm on an object M in AM, where for each arrow idA ⊗ g : A ⊗B N → A ⊗B M in F (AM) we have (idA ⊗ g)φN = φM (idA ⊗ idR ⊗ idAg) since g is A-linear. Thus, F is an equivalence of the category AM with its image subcategory. (⇐) Let M be the natural left module AA. Applying the hypothesis on the ring extension A | B, we have RT is projective and R ⊗T (A ⊗B A) =∼ A as left A-modules, and by naturality, as A-A-bimodules. By [9, 4.1] this characterizes a separable extension (via an application of the functor −⊗T (A⊗B A) to RT ⊕∗ =∼ TT and the isomorphism GF (A) =∼ A). 

For example, if A | B is a separable algebra, the centralizer R = A and T = Ae = op A ⊗ A. The module AAe is projective, a characterization of separability [4]. The e epimorphism εT : T → R corresponds to the well-known epimorphism µ : A → A with interesting kernel, the module of universal differentials Ω1 = {x(dy)|x, y ∈ A} where dx = x ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ x (cf. [2]). The following corollary is the well-known relative projectivity characterization of separable extension; e.g. [14, 10.8]. From the commutative diagram we see that tensoring by RT is the ingredient that changes split epis to in a study of separability.

Corollary 2.3. A ring extension A | B is separable if and only if the mapping µM : A ⊗B M → M given by µM (a ⊗ m)= am is a split A-C-epimorphism for each A-C-bimodule M where C is a ring.

Proof. Let A | B be any ring extension and M any A-C-bimodule. The homomorph- ism ψM : A ⊗B M → R ⊗T A ⊗B M, ψM (a ⊗ m)=1 ⊗ a ⊗ m, which is induced by the epi εT : TT → RT , leads us to a commutative diagram:

✲ A ⊗B M R ⊗T (A ⊗B M) ψM

µ M M ✲ γ ✛ M 6 LARS KADISON

If A | B is separable, then γM is an isomorphism of A-C-bimodules and εT is a split epi, whence ψM is split. It follows that µM is a split A-C-epimorphism as stated. Of course, if µA is split as an A-A-epi, then A | B is separable by definition.  Next we recall that a ring extension A | B is split, if B → A has a left inverse as B-B-homomorphisms; thus A | B is a proper extension, A is a right and left B- generator and a left inverse E, called a conditional expectation, satisfies E(1A)=1B. Recall that for a ring homomorphism B → A, the coinduced module (CoIndN)A of a B-module NB is an A-module Hom (AB,NB), which is of course a right S-module via composition with elements of S = End BAB . The module action of S however only commutes with the restricted action of A to B.

Lemma 2.4. Given a split extension A | B and a B-module NB, the mapping f ⊗ r 7→ f(r) defines an isomorphism

=∼ (15) Hom (AB,NB) ⊗S R −→ NB of right B-modules.

Proof. The mapping is S-balanced since SR is given by evaluation, α·r = α(r). The mapping is right B-linear since the B-module structure is given by (f ⊗r) ·b = fb⊗r, which is S-balanced as well, and f(br)= f(rb)= f(r)b for f ∈ Hom (AB ,NB),b ∈ B, r ∈ R = AB . An inverse is given n 7→ nE(−) ⊗ 1A where n ∈ N and nE(−) denotes the mapping in Hom (AB ,NB) given by x 7→ nE(x). This is indeed an inverse since nE(1) = n on the one hand and

f(r)E(−) ⊗ 1A = f ◦ ρr ◦ E ⊗S 1A = f ⊗ r, on the other hand. 

Now consider the functor corresponding to the restriction of coinduction, F : MB → F (MB) given by F (NB) = Hom (AB ,NB)B. (The image of F is the category we might denote by ResCoIndMB.) For a split extension this functor is an equivalence as we see next.

Theorem 2.5. A ring extension A | B is split if and only if the module SR is pro- jective and the induction functor F : MB → F (MB) is an equivalence of categories with inverse functor given by G(Hom (AB ,NB)) = Hom (AB ,NB) ⊗S R.

Proof. (⇒) That SR is cyclic projective follows from [6, Lemma 1.1], or by other means, noting that the left S-homomorphism εS : S → R given by α 7→ α(1) splits the monomomorphism SR → SS given by r 7→ rE(−). By lemma GF =∼ I on objects in MB, and is natural w.r.t. arrows f : NB → UB in MB since the evaluation mappings in the lemma clearly commute with Hom (A, f) ⊗ idR (where Hom (A, f) = λf ) and f. Also I =∼ F G on objects Hom (AB ,NB)B in F (MB), since =∼ Hom (AB ,NB) −→ Hom (AB , Hom (AB ,NB) ⊗S R), g 7−→ (a 7→ g(a)E(−) ⊗ 1A) and is natural w.r.t. an arrow f : NB → UB, since f(g(a)E(−)) = f(g(a))E(−). (⇐) Let N be the natural module BB, whence Hom (AB ,BB) ⊗S R =∼ B as right B-modules, and also as left B-modules by naturality. Apply the functor CENTRALIZERS AND INVERSES TO INDUCTION AS EQUIVALENCE OF CATEGORIES 7

Hom (AB ,BB) ⊗S − (from left S-modules to B-B-bimodules) to S R ⊕∗ =∼ SS. Whence BBB ⊕∗ =∼ BHom (AB ,BB)B. It follows that there is f ∈ Hom (BHom (AB ,BB)B, BBB) and

g ∈ Hom (BBB, BHom (AB ,BB)B) =∼ Hom (BAB , BBB) via g 7→ g(1B), such that f ◦g = idB. If F := g(1), this becomes f(F )=1B. Define E(a)= f(λa ◦ F ), an arrow in Hom(BAB , BBB) satisfying E(1A)=1B.  Note that the lemma and the proof of the theorem show that

Corollary 2.6. A ring extension A | B is split if and only if the module SR is finite projective and Hom (AB ,BB) ⊗S R =∼ B as B-B-bimodules. 3. Left D2 and H-separable Extensions A ring extension A | B is said to be left D2 (or left depth two) if its tensor-square A ⊗B A is centrally projective w.r.t. A as natural B-A-bimodules; i.e., n (16) BA ⊗B AA ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ BAA

Under some natural identifications of Hom (B AB, BA⊗B AA) =∼ T and Hom (BA⊗B AA, BAA) =∼ S valid for any ring extension, we arrive at the equivalent condition of left D2: there are matched elements βi ∈ S and ti ∈ T (called left D2 quasibases) such that the following equation in A ⊗B A holds, n 1 2 (17) x ⊗ y = X ti ⊗ ti βi(x)y i=1 for all x, y ∈ A. By letting y = 1, this last equation is quite analogous to the equation a(1) ⊗ τ(a(2))a(3) = a ⊗ 1 for a in some Hopf algebra with antipode τ. Let’s see this idea in action in the next lemma, which is going to be used in our last section on normality. B Lemma 3.1. Let A | B be a left D2 extension and AMA a bimodule. Then AM ⊆ M BA. Proof. For each m ∈ M B = {m ∈ M : mb = bm, ∀ b ∈ B}, define a mapping εm : A ⊗B A → M by εm(x ⊗ y) = xmy, which is well-defined. Extending the B notion of the module RT , one defines a right T -module structure on M in eq. (7) 1 2 by m·t = t mt . Apply εm to eq. (17) with y = 1 to obtain xm = Pi(m·ti)βi(x) ∈ M BA.  Naturally we would get equality in the lemma if we also had a corresponding right D2 condition, something we will do in the next section (and such extensions are said to be D2 ). For the next lemma we recall that we have T ⊗R A =∼ A ⊗B A 1 2 via a mapping πA sending t ⊗R a 7→ t ⊗B t a with inverse given by x ⊗B y 7→ Pi ti ⊗R βi(x)y (an application of eq. (17) [9, 2.1(4)]).

Lemma 3.2. If A | B is left D2 and AM is a module, then γM (r ⊗ a ⊗ m)= arm defines an isomorphism =∼ (18) R ⊗T (A ⊗B M) −→ M of right A-modules, which is natural w.r.t. A-module homomorphisms AM → AN. 8 LARS KADISON

Proof. Define a mapping πM = πA ⊗A idA via the canonical identification A⊗AM =∼ M as a component of the top horizontal arrow below. Since A | B is left D2, it follows that this arrow is an isomorphism. The left vertical and bottom horizontal arrows are again canonical isomorphisms. ∼ = ✲ R ⊗T T ⊗R M R ⊗T (A ⊗B M) idR ⊗ πM

=∼ γM ❄ ∼ ❄ = ✲ R ⊗R M M

The diagram is commutative by following an element r ⊗ t ⊗ m in the upper lefthand corner around from below to t1rt2m and around from above to r⊗t1 ⊗t2m, 1 2 then to t rt m, the same element. Thus, γM is an isomorphism. It is clearly natural w.r.t. arrows in AM as in the proof of Theorem 2.2. 

Let F again denote the induction functor on A-modules, so that F (M)= A⊗B M for an A-module AM. Theorem 3.3. If a ring extension A | B is left D2, then the induction functor F : AM → F (AM) is an equivalence of categories with inverse functor given by G(A ⊗B M)= R ⊗T (A ⊗B M).

∼= Proof. By lemma, GF =∼ I via the natural transformation γM : GF (M) −→ M. Also F G =∼ I on F (AM) by applying F to the natural transformation γ. 

In contrast to Theorem 2.2 for separable extensions, I am not aware of any characterization of left D2 extensions in terms of F and G with some condition on RT alone. There are examples that suggest we avoid weakening or strengthening the projectivity condition on RT , while the theorem below suggests weakening a generator condition on RT . There are of course separable extensions that are not left D2 such as the complex group algebras corresponding to a non-normal subgroup pair H < G in a finite group G [9, 3.2]. There are also left D2 extensions that are not separable such as the group algebras corresponding to a proper normal subgroup H ⊳ G of a p-group over a characteristic p field; or more mundanely, any finite projective algebra that is not a separable algebra. The H-separable extensions (named after Hirata) are both separable, left (and right) D2 [10, section 3] for which we have the following theorem. Recall that A | B is H-separable if there are matched A elements (called an H-sepability system) ei ∈ (A ⊗B A) and ri ∈ R (i =1,...,n) such that in A ⊗B A we have 1 ⊗ 1= Pi eiri. For example, from an H-separability system we see A | B is left D2 with βi = ρri and ti = ei.

Theorem 3.4. A ring extension A | B is H-separable if and only if RT is a pro- generator and F , G defined in Theorems 2.2 and 3.3 are inverse equivalences.

Proof. (⇒) This follows from Theorems 2.2 and 3.3 and the observation that RT is a generator [9, 4.2], which we also see as follows. Given an H-separability system, n n the epi ⊕ RT → TT given by (x1,...,xn) 7→ Pi=1 xiei is split by the right T - 1 2 1 2 monomorphism t 7→ (t r1t ,...,t rnt ). CENTRALIZERS AND INVERSES TO INDUCTION AS EQUIVALENCE OF CATEGORIES 9

n (⇐) From the generator condition TT ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ RT we arrive at n AA ⊗B AA ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ AAA, which is another characterization of H-separable extension A | B [5, ch. 2], by ten- soring with −⊗T (A ⊗B A) and using naturality together with GF =∼ I.  In this theorem, F and G are not Morita equivalences, although if we expand the category F (AM) to the category T M, the functor R ⊗T − is a Morita equivalence to the category Z(A)M, where Z(A) is the center of A [9, 4.3]. For example, if A | B is an Azumaya algebra (a separable algebra over its center B), then we recover the e well-known fact that A and B are Morita equivalent via the progenerator AAe [4, 5]. We now turn to coinduction of modules in relation to left D2 extension. The lemma below extends an aspect of the characterization of the endomorphism ring as a smash product with the bialgebroid S in [10, 3.8].

Lemma 3.5. If the extension A | B is left D2 and MA is a module, then there is a isomorphism Hom (AB ,MB) =∼ M ⊗R S of right B-modules and right S-modules, which is natural with respect to arrows in MA. Proof. The isomorphism is given by

χM : M ⊗R S → Hom (AB ,MB), χM (m ⊗ α)(a) := mα(a)).

This is B-linear w.r.t. the right B-module M⊗RS given by m⊗Rα ·b = mb⊗Rα since χM (mb⊗α)(a)= χM (m⊗α)(ba). It is also right S-linear since χM (m⊗α◦β)(a)= χM (m ⊗ α)(β(a)) for α, β ∈ S. The transformation φ is natural w.r.t. g : MA → NA since g(mα(−)) = g(m)α(−) for each α ∈ End BAB . An inverse mapping is given by 1 2 Hom (AB ,MB) → M ⊗R S : f 7→ X f(ti )ti ⊗R βi, i 1 2 inverse by short computations using α(t )t ∈ R and µM (f ⊗ idA) applied to eq. (17). 

Let R : MA →MB denote the usual restriction (pullback or forgetful) functor from A-modules to B-modules for a ring homomorphism B → A. The next theorem is like Theorem 2.5 for split extensions in that restricted coinduction is shown to be a fully faithful functor but restricted this time to the subcategory R(MA) of MB. Again let F be the functor of restricted coinduction from MB into MB given by F (N) = Hom (AB ,NB)B for any module NB.

Theorem 3.6. If A | B is left D2, then F is a category equivalence from R(MA) into F R(MA) with inverse functor G given on a module MA by

G(Hom (AB ,MB)B ) = Hom (AB ,MB) ⊗S R. Proof. Note that applying the lemma and associativity of tensor product gives us

(19) Hom (AB ,MB) ⊗S R =∼ M ⊗R S ⊗S R =∼ M ⊗R R =∼ M a compositon of isomorphisms from left to right giving the mapping ρM : f ⊗S r 7→ f(r) for f ∈ Hom (AB ,MB), r ∈ R. Since ρ is natural w.r.t. to morphism R(f) for arrows f in MA, it follows that GF =∼ I on R(MA). From this it follows that also F G =∼ I on F R(MA).  10 LARS KADISON

In contrast to Theorem 2.5 characterizing split extensions, which will also have F as an equivalence on the subcategory R(MA) of MB, I am not aware of any characterization of left D2 extensions in terms of F and G with some condition on SR alone. There are left D2 extensions that are not split such as the endomorphism algebra over the 2 × 2 upper triangular algebra [7, 5.5]. There are of course split extensions that are not left D2 such as the complex group algebras corresponding to a non-normal subgroup H < G of a finite group [9, 3.2], or certain exterior algebras n over their centers. If A | B is split and centrally projective (so BAB ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ BBB, thus it is left D2), we may characterize these by placing the progenerator condition on SR [6, 1.1] in a theorem formulated like Theorems 3.6 and 2.5. We end this section with an endomorphism ring characterization of left D2 for right f.g. projective extensions. Let E = End AB denote the right endomorphism ring of a ring extension A | B. This has A-A-bimodule structure given by (xfy)(a)= xf(ya), equivalently x · f · y = λx ◦ f ◦ λy.

Proposition 3.7. Suppose A | B is a ring extension where AB is finite projective. Then A | B is left D2 if and only if n (20) AEB ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ AAB. Proof. We note that for any ring extension, there is an isomorphism Φ, =∼ (21) End AB −→ Hom (A ⊗B AA, AA), Φ(f)(x ⊗ y)= f(x)y, with inverse given by F 7→ F (−⊗ 1A). Note that Φ is an A-A-isomorphism since Φ(xfy)(a ⊗ c)= xf(ya)c = xΦ(f)(ya ⊗ c). (⇒) If we are given that the tensor-square is centrally projective w.r.t. BAB , n (22) BA ⊗B AA ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ BAA, we apply the functor Hom (−, AA) from B-A-bimodules into A-B-bimodules to this, obtaining eq. (20). This only uses eq. (21) and does not use the hypothesis on AB. (⇐) Since AB is finite projective, it follows that A ⊗B AA and AE are finite n projective by applying −⊗B A and AHom (−, AB) to AB ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ BB. Hence the module A ⊗B AA is reflexive, so Hom (AE, AA) =∼ A ⊗B A. Then we apply BHom (A−, AA)A to eq. (20) and obtain eq. (22) as a consequence. 

4. Normality for Subrings

A ring extension A | B is right D2 if there are n matched elements uj ∈ T and γj ∈ S such that the following equation in the tensor-square A ⊗B A holds, n 1 2 (23) x ⊗ y = X xγj (y)uj ⊗ uj j=1 for all x, y ∈ A. Right D2 extensions are dual to left D2 extensions in a certain category of ring extensions, via the notion of opposite ring [7]. While there is no theoretical reason given yet for right D2 extensions to be left D2, there has never been observed a one-sided D2 ring extension that is not two-sided. We say a ring extension is D2 if it is both left and right D2. For example, finite right Galois extensions with Hopf algebroid actions are automatically right D2, but they can be shown to be left D2 as well via the antipode. Finding a Galois extension without antipode might give us a CENTRALIZERS AND INVERSES TO INDUCTION AS EQUIVALENCE OF CATEGORIES 11 one-sided D2 extension; however, there is Schauenburg’s theorem that an antipode is definable from a Galois isomorphism for a bialgebra action. In this section we study normality for subrings in relation to D2 subrings (or proper extensions via inclusion). The reason for this study is that normal subgroups of finite groups correspond precisely to D2 complex finite dimensional subgroup algebras [9], which led to Nikshych asking the interesting generalized question of whether a D2 Hopf subalgebra is normal; we answer this question affirmatively in case the Hopf subalgebra enjoys equality with its double centralizer in corollary 4.5. We use the simplest possible definition of normal subring in [16] while dropping the requirement that the ring and subring be semisimple artinian. (The requirements of semisimplicity and the ideals be maximal are not needed in our study; however, the reader is urged to read [16] before making any further use of this notion.) First, let B be a subring of A; we say an (two-sided) ideal I in B is A-invariant if AI = IA as subsets of A. An ideal J in A may be contracted to an ideal J ∩ B in B. Definition 4.1. For the purposes of this section, a subring B ⊆ A is said to be normal if all contracted ideals are A-invariant; i.e., for every ideal J in A, we have A(J ∩ B) = (J ∩ B)A. For example, the center of a ring is a normal subring. Normal subgroups corre- spond to normal subrings via group algebra by the proposition on Hopf subalgebras below. Proposition 4.2. If A | B is a D2 extension, then the centralizer R is a normal subring in A. Proof. By lemma 3.1 and its right D2 dual, we have the following equality of subsets in an A-A-bimodule AMA, (24) AM B = M BA Let J be an ideal in A. Then J B = J ∩ R, so J contracted to R is A-invariant by the equation. 

For the same reasons as in eq. (24), each submodule J ⊆ RT , given a D2 extension A | B, satisfies A-invariance: (25) AJ = JA

Recall that a Hopf subalgebra K ⊂ H (with antipode τ) is normal if a(1)Kτ(a(2)) ⊆ K and τ(a(1))Ka(2) ⊆ K for all a ∈ H. The two terminologies do not conflict: Proposition 4.3. Suppose K ⊆ H is a Hopf subalgebra. Then K is normal subring of H if and only if K is a normal Hopf subalgebra of H. Proof. (⇐) Suppose K is a normal Hopf subalgebra in H. Let J be an ideal in H and x ∈ J ∩ K. Given a ∈ H, we note that

(26) ax = a(1)xτ(a(2))a(3) ∈ (J ∩ K)H by the normality condition. Hence H(J ∩K) ⊆ (J ∩K)H, and similarly (J ∩K)H ⊆ H(J ∩ K). (⇒) Here we use the well-known characterization of normality for a Hopf sub- + + + + algebra K in H by HK = K H [13, ch. 3]where K = ker ε|K and H = ker ε are the augmentation ideals of the counit (and its restriction to K). We note that K+ = H+ ∩ K, whence by hypothesis HK+ = K+H.  12 LARS KADISON

It is well-known in textbooks on group theory that given a subgroup H < G, the centralizer subgroup CG(H) is normal in the normalizer subgroup NG(H); consequently, if H is normal in G, then CG(H) is normal in G. The converse though is not true by some easy examples; e.g., within the dihedral group of transformations of a square. Here is a Hopf subalgebra analogue. Proposition 4.4. Suppose K is a Hopf subalgebra of a finite dimensional Hopf algebra H, in which the centralizer CH (K) is a Hopf subalgebra as well. If K ⊆ H is a normal Hopf subalgebra, then CH (K) ⊆ H is a normal Hopf subalgebra. Proof. Since K ⊆ H is a normal Hopf subalgebra, it is Hopf-Galois (with coaction by the quotient Hopf algebra H/HK+) and therefore D2 [9]. By proposition 4.2, the centralizer CH (K) is a normal subring in H, therefore a normal Hopf subalgebra by proposition 4.3. 

Notice that the proof shows the following. Corollary 4.5. Suppose K is a Hopf subalgebra of a finite dimensional Hopf algebra H, in which the centralizer CH (K) and the double centralizer CH (CH (K)) are Hopf subalgebras. If K ⊆ H is a D2 Hopf subalgebra, then the double centralizer CH (CH (K)) ⊆ H is a normal Hopf subalgebra.

While K ⊆ CH (CH (K)) is always the case, this will be a proper subset even for certain normal subgroups, such as the index 2 subgroups in the quaternion 8-element group.

5. Discussion In this section, we append some additional thoughts about the previous four sections. First, we pose in terms of modules the problem of when a ring extension A | B satisfies R ⊗T (A ⊗B A) =∼ A via the mapping γA defined in section 2. For any ring C and modules MC,NC , this question becomes simply when is evaluation =∼ Hom (MC ,NC ) ⊗E MC −→ NC an isomorphism where E := End MC ? We view this question in terms of Morita theory and its generalizations, thereby extending Theorem 2.2. Secondly, two characterizations of the left D2 condition on a ring extension A | B are obtained via naturally isomorphic functors of induction or coinduction from the category of A-modules into the category of B-modules. Third, the centralizer of a D2 extension is noted to be a pre-braided commutative ring. Finally, a depth two arrow in a bicategory of bimodules is considered in comparison with the endo- morphism ring extension of a bimodule, and two candidates for a definition of D2 bimodule are shown to be the same if the bimodule is finite projective.

∼= 5.1. The Morita viewpoint on γA. : R ⊗T (A ⊗B A) −→ A. Let A | B be a ring extension. An interesting question is when A | B has isomorphic γA (which recall is given by γA(r ⊗ a ⊗ c) = arc for r ∈ R, a,c ∈ A). Such an extension is a generalization of separable extension, right D2 extension and left D2 extension, which is clear from lemmas 2.1 and 3.2 (as well as an adaptation of the latter to right D2 extensions). Thinking in terms of the canonical isomorphisms introduced in the preliminaries of section 1, there are R =∼ HomAe (A ⊗B A, A), T =∼ EndAe (A ⊗B A), where CENTRALIZERS AND INVERSES TO INDUCTION AS EQUIVALENCE OF CATEGORIES 13

e op A = A ⊗ A and γA is identical with evaluation,

e Hom A (A ⊗B A, A) ⊗EndAe (A⊗B A) (A ⊗B A) −→ A, where RT is identical with the right EndAe (A ⊗B A)-module HomAe (A ⊗B A, A) given by right composition. This leads to the extended question of when given a ring C, there are modules MC and NC such that the evaluation mapping ∼ (27) γ : Hom (M ,N ) ⊗ M −→= N M,N C C End MC C C given by γM,N (f ⊗ m)= f(m), is an isomorphism? A solution to this when N = C and MC is a progenerator comes from Morita theory, since Hom (MC, CC ) ⊗E MC =∼ C as C-C-bimodules where E := End MC (in addition to M ⊗C Hom (MC , CC ) =∼ End MC via rank one projection). More generally, if given a C-module XC , let σ[X] denote the full subcategory of right C-modules that are submodules of quotients of direct sums X(I) for an arbitrary indexing set I [18].

Proposition 5.1. Suppose MC is σ[X]-projective and σ[X]-generator and NC ∈ σ[X] w.r.t. a third C-module X. Then the evaluation mapping γM,N above is a right C-isomorphism.

The proof follows directly from the proof in [11, p. 499]. If we pass to the Dress subcategory D[M] of σ[M], whose objects are direct summands of direct sums of copies of M, there is a solution given by the following.

Theorem 5.2. Suppose MC,NC are two C-modules such that NC ∈ D[M]. Then γM,N is an isomorphism. Proof. n Let πi : MC → NC and ιi : NC → MC be 2n mappings such that Pi=1 πi ◦  ιi = idN . Then an inverse to γM,N (f ⊗m)= f(m) is given by n 7→ Pi πi ⊗ιi(n).

Lemma 2.1 is a corollary of this theorem, since if A | B is separable, we have e NC ⊕∗ =∼ MC via the multiplication mapping, where C = A , N = A and M = A ⊗B A. As a last remark note that there is a version of the commutative triangle in Fig- ure 1 if DMC is a bimodule w.r.t. rings C and D. This triangle consists of the eval- uation mapping γM,N and the counit of adjunction ε to the standard Hom-Tensor adjunction between the functors Hom (MC , −) and −⊗D M between MC and MD, which is another evaluation mapping. Between them is a canonical quotient map- ping ψM induced from left module structure D → End MC. The commutative diagram is the following.

Hom (M ,N ) ⊗ M ✲ Hom (M ,N ) ⊗ M C C D C C End MC ψM,N

ε ✲ γ M,N ✛ N 14 LARS KADISON

5.2. Two Functorial Characterizations of Left D2 Extension. Given a ring extension A | B, we consider two functors of induction from the category of modules A A A A AM into BM. First we have IB := ResBIndBResB which is defined as the notation A suggests, viz. IB (AM) = B A ⊗B M. Second, we make use of constructed ring T and its right module structure over the centralizer R given by t · r = t1 ⊗ t2r (recalled from the preliminaries of section 1). From this we obtain a second functor T T IR : AM → BM defined by IR (AM)= T ⊗R M where the left B-module structure makes use of elements of R and B commuting in A: b · (t ⊗ m)= t ⊗ bm. Left D2 extensions are characterized by these two functors being naturally isomorphic and having a special property.

Theorem 5.3. A ring extension A | B is left D2 if and only if TR if f.g. projective A T and the two functors IB and IR are naturally isomorphic. Proof. The theorem is a restatement of [7, Prop. 2.2] in terms of functors. If A | B ∼ is left D2, then A ⊗B M = T ⊗R M via a ⊗B m 7→ Pi ti ⊗R βi(a)m with inverse 1 2 t ⊗R m 7→ t ⊗B t m in terms of a left D2 quasibase. Either of these maps is clearly natural w.r.t. an arrow AM → AN in AM. That TR is finite projective follows B from applying eq. (17) to elements in T = (A ⊗B A) ⊆ A ⊗B A. n Conversely, given TR ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ RR, apply the functor −⊗R A into BMA, one A ∼ T ∼ n obtains from naturality and IB (A) = IR (A) that BA ⊗B AA ⊕∗ = ⊕ BAA, the left D2 condition. 

Note that if A | B is left D2 then the two functors are also naturally isomorphic as functors to the category of left bimodules over T and B: A ∼ T (28) IB = IR : AM → T ⊗BM where T ⊗BT ⊗R M for a module AM is naturally given by (t⊗b)·(u⊗m)= tu⊗bm, 1 2 and T ⊗BA ⊗B M is given by (t ⊗ b) · (a ⊗B m)= bat ⊗B t m. Now recall the endomorphism ring S = End BAB and introduce a third functor S S of coinduction CoIR : AM → BM defined by CoIR(AM)= BHom (RS, RM) where one again makes use elements of B and R commuting in A in order to define the left B-module Hom (RS, RM). In analogy with the previous results, the two functors below are naturally isomorphic if A | B is left D2, also as functors into S⊗BM.

Theorem 5.4. A ring extension A | B is left D2 if and only if the module RS is A S f.g. projective and IB is naturally isomorphic to CoIR. Proof. This is a restatement of [7, Prop. 2.2(ii)] in functorial terms. If A | B is left D2, then A ⊗B M =∼ Hom (RS, RM) via

(29) χM (a ⊗B m)(α) := α(a)m 1 2 for α ∈ S, with inverse F 7→ Pi ti ⊗R ti F (βi). Either mapping is natural w.r.t. an arrow g : AM → AN (where χM and χN fit into a commutative square with Hom (S,g) and A ⊗ g). n Conversely, from RS⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ RR, apply BHom (−, RA)A to obtain via naturality A ∼ S  and BIB (A)A = BCoIR(A)A the left D2 condition, eq. (16).

Note that χM is also a left S-homomorphism where S A ⊗B M is naturally given by α · a = α(a) and SHom (RS, RM) is induced from the natural module SS. This follows from χM (β(a) ⊗ m)(α)= χM (a ⊗ m)(α ◦ β) for α, β ∈ S. CENTRALIZERS AND INVERSES TO INDUCTION AS EQUIVALENCE OF CATEGORIES 15

5.3. The centralizer of a D2 extension is a pre-braided commutative ring. In [6] a natural coaction δ : A → A ⊗R T on a (right) D2 extension A | B is introduced, and it is noted that A | B is a right T -Galois extension if AB is faithfully flat (although this condition is not needed for the discussion to follow). The coaction δ is given in Sweedler notation by

(30) a(0) ⊗ a(1) := X γj (a) ⊗R uj j using the notation in eq. (23). The coaction δ restricts to the centralizer R of A | B to give the mapping sR : R → T , where sR(r)=1 ⊗B r, after the simplification R ⊗R T =∼ T : r(0) ⊗ r(1) = X 1 ⊗ γj (r)uj =1 ⊗R 1 ⊗B r. j 1 2 Recall the module RT with action temporarily denoted by r⊳t = t rt . Then the ring R satisfies the following pre-braided commutativity condition (cf. [1]): (∀ s, r ∈ R)

(31) sr = r(0)(s ⊳ r(1)). Another equivalent way to look at this type of commutativity condition is for a ring R with module structures S R and RT which do not combine to give a bimodule, but instead there are elements γj ∈ S, uj ∈ T such that

(32) sr = X(γj · r)(s⊳uj ) j

The Miyashita-Ulbrich module RT , the right R-bialgebroid T and the right T - comodule R formally satisfy the Yetter-Drinfeld condition.

5.4. Depth Two Bimodules. We consider possible definitions of a depth two bimodule from two viewpoints. First, there is the viewpoint of a depth two arrow in a bicategory with a recipe for right D2 in [17]. There is a bicategory of rings where arrows or 1-cells are bimodules and 2-cells are bimodule homomorphisms [12, p. 283]. (Horizontal) composition of arrows is tensoring bimodules, which is only associative up to an isomorphism, while (vertical) composition of 2-cells is composition of bimodule homomorphisms. If α : RMS → RNS, β : RNS → RQS, γ : SUT → SVT , and δ : SVT → SWT are bimodule homomorphisms, then the horizontal and vertical compositions satisfy a middle four exchange law as an equality of homomorphisms between RM ⊗S UT → RQ ⊗S WT

(33) (β ⊗S δ) ◦ (α ⊗S γ) = (β ◦ α) ⊗S (δ ◦ γ) To this we make some changes. Replace an object ring R by its category of modules MR, then the arrows above become induction functors, to which we add coinduction functors Hom (SMR, −): MR → MS. The coinduction functor just given has left adjoint the induction functor −⊗S MR : MS →MR. The recipe for bimodule SMR to be a right D2 arrow in [17] is functorial with value on M given by n (34) Hom (MR, End (MR) ⊗S MR) ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ End (MR) as right S-modules. For example, if B → A is a ring homomorphism and M = BAA A the induced bimodule, then the induction functor is IndB, the coinduction functor 16 LARS KADISON

A is ResB, and by naturality one arrives at the right D2 condition, n (35) AA ⊗B AB ⊕∗ =∼ ⊕ AAB. On the other hand, one might make use of the endomorphism ring of a ring extension to define a bimodule SMR to be right D2 if the left module structure mapping S → End MR is right D2. For example, given a ring homomorphism B → A and its induced bimodule BAA, this map simplifies B → End AA =∼ A to B → A. Now let E denote End MR, then S → E is right D2 if EE⊗S ES is centrally projective w.r.t. EES. What relation does the central projectivity condition have to the condition in eq. (34)? They are the same if MR is finite projective:

Lemma 5.5. Suppose SMR is a bimodule which is f.g. projective as a right module. Then there is an E-S-bimodule isomorphism, =∼ (36) End MR ⊗S End MR −→ Hom (MR, End MR ⊗S MR) given by φ(f ⊗ g)(m)= f ⊗ g(m) for every f,g ∈ E, m ∈ M. The proof of the lemma is left as an exercise. Note that for any ring extension A | B the canonical bimodule B AA is right rank one free. These considerations lead us then to define when a right finite projective bimodule is right D2.

Definition 5.6. A right f.g. projective bimodule SMR is said to be right D2 if its endomorphism ring extension S → End MR is right D2. The definition admits an extension of the definition to left D2 left finite projective bimodules by opposite categorical considerations as in [7]: a left finite projective op bimodule SMR is left D2 if its left endomorphism ring extension R → (End SM) is left D2. Then a left D2 extension A | B yields the left D2 bimodule AAB. However, left and right D2 bimodules do not generalize properly D2 ring extension unless we restrict ourselves to Frobenius extensions and Frobenius bimodules, since a Frobenius extension is left D2 iff it is right D2. Recall that a bimodule SMR is Frobenius if S M and MR are finite projective modules, and the left and right duals of M are R-S-bimodule isomorphic:

(37) Hom (SM, SS) =∼ Hom (MR, RR). The main property of a Frobenius bimodule is that its right and left endomorphism ring extensions are Frobenius (Morita, cf. [5, ch. 2]).

Definition 5.7. A Frobenius bimodule SMR is said to be D2 if its endomorphism op ring extensions R → (End SM) and S → End MR are D2.

Note that a Frobenius extension A | B is D2 iff its bimodule BAA (or AAB) is Frobenius and D2, which follows from the endomorphism ring theorem for D2 extensions [7]. For example, the Frobenius bimodule in [5, 2.7] is D2 since its endomorphism ring is H-separable, therefore left and right D2. D2 bimodules would in principle provide a wealth of examples of D2 extensions via the endomorphism ring. References [1] I. B´alint and K. Szlach´anyi, Finitary Galois extensions over non-commutative bases, KFKI preprint (2004), RA/0412122. [2] G. B¨ohm and T. Brzezi´nski, Strong connections and the relative Chern-Galois character for corings, preprint, 2005. arXiv.math.RA/0503469 CENTRALIZERS AND INVERSES TO INDUCTION AS EQUIVALENCE OF CATEGORIES 17

[3] S. Caenepeel, D. Quinn and S. Raianu, Duality for finite Hopf algebra ex- plained by corings, preprint, 2005. RA/0504427. [4] F. DeMeyer and E. Ingraham, Separable Algebras over Commutative Rings, LNM 181, Springer, New York, 1971. [5] L. Kadison, New Examples of Frobenius Extensions, University Lecture Series 14, AMS, Providence, 1999. Update, (2004) 6 pp.: www.ams.org/bookpages. [6] L. Kadison, Depth two and the Galois coring, in: Noncommutative Geome- try and Representation Theory in Mathematical Physics, ed. J. Fuchs, AMS Contemporary Math, to appear. math.RA/0408155. [7] L. Kadison, The endomorphism ring theorem for Galois and D2 extensions, preprint, 2005, QA/0503194. [8] L. Kadison, Galois theory for bialgebroids, depth two and normal Hopf sub- algebras, in: Proc. Conf. Swansea and Ferrara (2004), eds. T. Brzezinski and C. Menini, Annali dell’Universita di Ferrara, Sez. VII, Scienze Matematiche, to appear. arXiv.math.QA/0502188. [9] L. Kadison and B. K¨ulshammer, Depth two, normality and a trace ideal con- dition for Frobenius extensions, Commun. Algebra, to appear. GR/0409346. [10] L. Kadison and K. Szlach´anyi, Bialgebroid actions on depth two extensions and duality, Adv. in Math. 179 (2003), 75–121. [11] T.Y. Lam, Lectures on Modules and Rings, GTM 189, Springer, New York, 1999. [12] S. Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician, GTM 5, Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 1998. [13] S. Montgomery, Hopf Algebras and Their Actions on Rings, CBMS Regional Conf. Series in Math. Vol. 82, AMS, Providence, 1993. [14] R. Pierce, Associative Algebras, GTM 88, Springer, New York, 1982. [15] F. Van Oystaeyen et al, Separable functors revisited, Commun. Algebra 18 (1990), 1445-1459. [16] M.A. Rieffel, Normal subrings and induced representations, J. Algebra 59 (1979), 364–386. [17] K. Szlach´anyi, Finite quantum groupoids and inclusions of finite type, in: Mathematical physics in mathematics and physics (Siena, 2000), 393–407, Fields Inst. Commun., 30, A.M.S., Providence, RI, 2001. [18] R. Wisbauer, Foundations of Module and Ring Theory, Gordon and Breach, Philadelphia, 1991.

Matematiska Institutionen, Goteborg¨ University, S-412 96 Goteborg,¨ Sweden E-mail address: [email protected]